And how is theistic evolution reasonable? How is trusting in and conforming to modern science, which very possibly could be proved to be false in the future, reasonable? Why waste your time basing your faith on something that we don't have all the facts on, and something that may be disproved in the future?

Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint

His Grace, Bishop Timothy, I'm sure, does not "base his faith" primarilly on modern science. However, he is an extremely well-educated, erudite, and intelligent man, who can not cavalierly dismiss the oft-verified results of modern scientific inquiry, as can those who understand it poorly.

And, precisely at what point do you think we will "have all the facts?" There is no absolute knowledge (including in the realm of faith; that's why they call it "faith!") As Karl Popper so well pointed out, all knowledge is hypothetical, just with varying degrees of verifiability. But, constructing valid methods of verification is exactly what modern science is all about.

I do not think we will ever have all the facts. That is why it is absolutely stupid to depend on science in matters of faith.

Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint

And how is theistic evolution reasonable? How is trusting in and conforming to modern science, which very possibly could be proved to be false in the future, reasonable? Why waste your time basing your faith on something that we don't have all the facts on, and something that may be disproved in the future?

Agreed! Belief in the theory of evoloution is a gateway heresy!

Logged

"Any baptized person who ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â¦ obstinately denies or doubts any of the truths proposed for belief by divine and Catholic faith, is a heretic." (C. 1325)Ãƒâ€š

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint

I do not think we will ever have all the facts. That is why it is absolutely stupid to depend on science in matters of faith.

It's not a really a question of that, though; certainly, not in His Grace Bishop Kallistos' case. Rather, it is a matter of not ignoring the oft-confirmed results of science; not depicting the faith as if it were in conflict with the authentic, non-tendential use of intelligence and reason.

Many of the scientific facts today may be proved wrong in the future as technology advances, we do not that is why we must not embrace science as if it were total truth and some how adjust our faith or reinterpret it to fit sicentific discoveries. We can use science to enhance or proove our faith, but never to define it. Now I am not saying this is the case with Bishop ware, for I do not know enough about his stance on evolution.

« Last Edit: June 12, 2004, 11:18:51 PM by Ben »

Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint

Read my last post, I see no problem in using science to help us understand our faith, but never to define or alter our faith.

Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint

I am curious as to how science would alter our faith. Was it a matter of "altering" when it turned out to be the truth that the Sun is the center of our solar system and that we're not at the center of the galaxy let alone the universe? I doubt very much that that particular scientific fact will be proven untrue, btw.

Ben, what do you know about how the Scientific Method actually works? The way of observation, hypotheses, testing for reproducability and reworking when verifiable data doesn't fit the proposed model? What is your field of education?

I don't mean offense here.

Ebor

« Last Edit: June 13, 2004, 09:15:36 AM by Ebor »

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

Ebor, it is a well known fact that the Scientific Method can not be applied to macro Evolution and the formation or start of the world, or at least thats what I've been told, even by those 100% in support of Darwin's theories. And they are just that theories, there is still a lot we don't know, and there is much we will learn in the future, and we willl see many ideas that are advertised as truth disproved. Look at the developement of the theory of evolution and the rise of the anthropic priniciple, and you will see constantly there are new discoveries that shed new light upon or even disprove previous ones.

Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint

Ebor, it is a well known fact that the Scientific Method can not be applied to macro Evolution and the formation or start of the world, or at least thats what I've been told, even by those 100% in support of Darwin's theories.

First, evolution *only* has to do with biology. It has nothing to do with the origin of the universe or the formation of the earth, nor does it have anything to do with how life ultimately originated. It is *solely* concerned with the changes in populations over time. Secondly, "macro" and "micro" evolution are not terms used in the scientific community, and only really have meaning to anti-evolutionists. As far as science is concerned, the difference between the two is of degree, not of kind. Thirdly, the scientific method most certainly can be applied to the theory of evolution, and is. The theory of evolution is incredibly well-established in the field of biology, and has been borne out through decades of testing and observation. Not only that, but speciation has been scienfically observed and described; i.e. the oft-repeated claim that nobody has observed evolution in action is *false*. New species have come about in our lifetimes.

Quote

And they are just that theories,

Just because something is a theory does not mean that it is not true. A theory is an explanation of facts. There is the fact of evolution (i.e. the fact that populations change over time, and that new species have formed), and there is the theory of evolution (which implies things such as common descent, natural selections, etc.). The theory of evolution is so well-established that the likelihood of it being overturned is about as likely as the theory of relativity being overturned: possible, but so unlikely as to not be worth worrying about.

Quote

Look at the developement of the theory of evolution and the rise of the anthropic priniciple, and you will see constantly there are new discoveries that shed new light upon or even disprove previous ones.

Yes, in science, nothing is set in stone. This is not a flaw of science, but an essential component of how it works. Science is constantly testing its theories to discover flaws in them, so that these flaws might be corrected. Contrast this to most creation "scientists", many of whom are still parroting misquotations and falsehoods that were debunked in the 80s (or even earlier!).

First, evolution *only* has to do with biology. It has nothing to do with the origin of the universe or the formation of the earth, nor does it have anything to do with how life ultimately originated

.

Ok, I agree Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of earth or the universe, but it does have everything to do with origin of life and developement of life.

Quote

Secondly, "macro" and "micro" evolution are not terms used in the scientific community, and only really have meaning to anti-evolutionists. As far as science is concerned, the difference between the two is of degree, not of kind.

Whether used in the scientific community or not, I do not care, but there is a difference in kind betwee macro and micro evolution.

In science, macro at the beginning of a word just means "big", and micro at the beginning of a word just means "small" (both from the Greek words). For example, a macrophage means a bigger than normal cell, but it is only a few times bigger than other cells, and not an order of magnitude bigger.

In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch") or the change of a species over time into another (anagenesis, not nowadays generally used). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, is also therefore macroevolution.

Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species.

Another way to state the difference is that macroevolution is between-species evolution of genes and microevolution is within-species evolution of genes.

The terms macroevolution and microevolution were first coined in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko, in his German-language work Variabilit+ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â±t und Variation, which was the first attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics and evolution. Filipchenko was an evolutionist, but as he wrote during the period when Mendelism seemed to have made Darwinism redundant, the so-called "eclipse of Darwinism" (Bowler 1983), he was not a Darwinian, but an orthogeneticist.

Quote

The theory of evolution is so well-established that the likelihood of it being overturned is about as likely as the theory of relativity being overturned: possible, but so unlikely as to not be worth worrying about.Yes, in science, nothing is set in stone. This is not a flaw of science, but an essential component of how it works. Science is constantly testing its theories to discover flaws in them, so that these flaws might be corrected. Contrast this to most creation "scientists", many of whom are still parroting misquotations and falsehoods that were debunked in the 80s (or even earlier!).

I am not saying that evolution will be completley overturned, but there is the possibilty that different theories within evolution can be proved false in the future. Look at the theorgy of evolution, it has constantly evolved itself. It is a theory that is not set in stone ,that is ever changing, day by day.

« Last Edit: June 13, 2004, 04:59:47 PM by Ben »

Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint

Whether used in the scientific community or not, I do not care, but there is a difference in kind betwee macro and micro evolution.

Well, others do care how the scientific community, particularly the biological sciences, uses words because they understand what they mean and how they apply to the subject. Are you a biologist, Ben? Are you in a scientific discipline? The Greek roots of the words may be of interest for a general sense, but can have specific meanings in certain fields and it's the experts that get to define what they mean. And if trained Biologists don't use macro/micro for evolution, they're the ones who get to say what the terminology should be.

In your definition, are you quoting any particular text book or website on Biology?

And regarding your "well known fact", if it's what you've been told, who was it that told you that and did they have any particular viewpoint that they favoured?

When a scientific theory changes, it does not mean necessarily that the previous idea was "false" but that it did not have some data that has since been discovered. Science is not set in stone, but that does not fault those before who didn't have as much information. And new things discovered that don't fit the hypothesis are looked at to see what needs to be changed.

Ebor

« Last Edit: June 13, 2004, 07:57:54 PM by Ebor »

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

This is one of those areas that many people seem to get really upset about but I dont understand why. What does it matter if I believe in a theistic evolution and an old earth creation and someone else believes in a young earth this is a minor issue that as i see it plays no role in your salvation or status as a christian. Personally I have been told by a very prominent protestant young earth advocate that i was very likely going to hell for not believing in a young earth I just dont get it or think its important although amongst rational people it is an interesting discussion topic.

And if trained Biologists don't use macro/micro for evolution, they're the ones who get to say what the terminology should be.

Actually, on this specific point I must concede I was mistaken. After Ben's post, I did some checking, and some biologists have indeed used these terms. They are by no means common, however (probably because they're maddeningly imprecise), and definitely don't have the importance that creationists tend to ascribe to them.

This is one of those areas that many people seem to get really upset about but I dont understand why. What does it matter if I believe in a theistic evolution and an old earth creation and someone else believes in a young earth this is a minor issue that as i see it plays no role in your salvation or status as a christian. Personally I have been told by a very prominent protestant young earth advocate that i was very likely going to hell for not believing in a young earth

Well, that's the thing, Historynut. For all of me, people can believe in young earth if it pleases them to do so. On the other hand, if they come up with a 'proof' that is not accurate, I may point it out to them.

While it's possible that there are rabid Old Earth/Theistic Evolution believers who get upset at someone who is Y.E. I haven't personally come across any. But like you I've encountered those who can't stand it that someone is Old Earth/ T. E. and make it an article of faith on which hangs salvation that the Earth is young.

ah well.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis